Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Suppose we would no longer use the word Ki, as it can be confusing and leading to complicated discussions - could we replace the word Ki for a word or concept that will explain it to satisfaction for western people? If so, what would be that word; intent, sensing, visualisation, spirit or ...?
Tom

I think spirit is a fairly accurate translation of ki. It has a lot of meanings and connotations in common with ki. To name a few:

- the vital principle or animating force within living beings
- the mind, will, feelings, mood (though the latter are more japanese meanings of ki than chinese)
- courage, liveliness, vigour, energy
- intent
- firmness
- original meaning in Latin is breath, which is fairly close to the meaning of gas, as is the meaning of distilled alcohol, which is acquired from alcohol vapor

Just about the only meaning that's clearly a mismatch would be:
- a supernatural being

A Dutch professor in Greek philosophy always gave the same text to translate by his first year students;
translated it goes; One should not eat to many beans, for they contain a lot of psyche. Psyche meaning wind ! (and breath, life, soul, spirit).

I think spirit is a fairly accurate translation of ki. It has a lot of meanings and connotations in common with ki. To name a few:

- the vital principle or animating force within living beings
- the mind, will, feelings, mood (though the latter are more japanese meanings of ki than chinese)
- courage, liveliness, vigour, energy
- intent
- firmness
- original meaning in Latin is breath, which is fairly close to the meaning of gas, as is the meaning of distilled alcohol, which is acquired from alcohol vapor

Just about the only meaning that's clearly a mismatch would be:
- a supernatural being

There is a lot more to be said about the meaning and origins of the word spirit, and how much of its original meaning got lost in our times. The closer we stay with its original meaning the more a translation of Ki into Spirit becomes correct and understandable.

However, since we have lost much of its original meaning, spirit has become a word that shares similar problems of interpretation as the word ki has.

A Dutch professor in Greek philosophy always gave the same text to translate by his first year students;
translated it goes; One should not eat to many beans, for they contain a lot of psyche. Psyche meaning wind ! (and breath, life, soul, spirit).

The question is not so much testing which is the superior theory/model Ki or Physics because they are entirely different but acknowledging they are tools for understanding and using the right tool when required.

As a generalisation the historical scientific traditions in the East are based on observation, where as Western Science is deductive. Got a new phenomena to explain, just call it 'Ki' and the Eastern model is satisfied, or in the West design a reductive experiment to test only that phenomena to come up with wether its explainable or not.

The two traditions can collide (deductive vs. observational) when they meet and so Western science says - hey I can explain unbendable arm therefore Ki doesn't exist, whereas the Eastern tradition says OK but thats just unbendable arm but what about unraisable body, intent etc.... The physicist says you can't do that its a wandering argument, the Ki-ster says yeah but if you can't explain all of it then physics doesn't explain it all.

I think western science has had a pretty good crack at explaining most of the phenomena you are likely to see in Aikido, but there are gaps - cause this stuff is really hard to understand, explain or devise an experiment for. Reduction of complex systems means eliminating variables... but there are just so many damn variables and in complex psycho-physical interaction elimination is nigh on impossible

As an aside on complexity, just because we can explain chemistry through atomic level interactions doesn't mean its always convenient to do so. Ssee this link for metabolic pathways in a cell - thats a whole lot of equations if the abstraction of chemistry isn't used, and still damn complicated when chemistry, as a model, is used ).

In a like (though perhaps not scientificTM) way in the dojo 'extend Ki' is a simplified abstraction that works well as a conceptual tool for a whole host of phenomena (momentum, collisions, biomechanics, intent, perception, conscious/sub conscious training, dual mental tasking etc...) wether or not it is acknowledged as a 'mysterious phenenoma' it works and can be useful.

Probably been done already. Problem is "satisfying" . Don't the french call it elan vital? Much the same as prana.

Prana is known in yoga as 'vital' energy and there in elan vital with have vital again. So? Vital energy.

All are related to life, life supporting, life giving, etc. So there you are, a pretty straightforward concept.

You will find the same basic concept in the word vitamin. Life supporting minerals.

Emphasis in all? Vital.

Of course you could always leave out that which is vital

Peace.G.

Really Graham, you have sometimes a curious way of knitting things together.

Vital comes from the latin vita - life.
Elan means "spirited" or "enthusiastic". It can also refer to someone who is in motion. Elan vital is the main subject of philosophy of Bergson, one of the more wellknown and important French philosophers.

Did you not already suggest life force as a translation? Comes close to elan vital.

Matthew's proposition - There are no things in the martial arts that cannot be explained by physics.

Mark's proposition - It is a fact that some things in the martial arts cannot be explained by physics.

It's at this point that the experimental physicist would devise an experiment to test which of the above propositions is supported by experimental data. Anyone care to contribute to the design of said experiment? Thought experiments welcomed.

Ron

There have been some really neat thought experiments done! Its not physics per se. Ulitmately it is physics, cause neurology and perception is just event potentials in the brain, but its easier to work at the abstracted level.

The question of what makes athletes in skill based sports react faster than others has been examined quite a bit (and also highly relevant to MA) Turns out the P300 type reaction times (300mS) to visual stimulus are pretty much the limit but what can be messed with is looking at perception of movement to make decisions earlier than an event (probably nothing new to aikiweb-ka). For example some neat stuff has been done in cricket when videos of bowlers have had the arms, ball, body alternately occlude (hidden) to look at how batters are making decisions. Turns out that getting up the much misquoted 10,000 hrs to expertise as a batter by using a bowling machine is probably training the wrong kind of perceptual skills as the cues in the bowlers run up and predelivery activity aren't being trained (though the physical skills in swinging a bat obviously are )

Why is chemistry a different different discipline than quantum dynamics? All chemistry can be derived from quantum dynamics--except the parts that chemistry gets wrong, because there are results from quantum dynamics which chemistry treats as a rounding error.

Why is biology different from chemistry? All biology can be derived from chemistry, except the parts biology gets wrong, because biology simplifies chemistry's results.

So sure, "ki" is a higher-level concept, like biology or chemistry, that simplifies out the lower-level detail. But utility in the real world is often driven by abstracting out lower-level concepts so as to reveal and address the higher-level unifying principles. "Ki" is one such concept.

Yeah, we could replace it with something that would make our western cerebellums hurt less. But we throw out 2000 years of martial arts' experience at our peril.

And by the way... prove that the ancient Chinese were "wrong" in worshiping mountain and river spirits. Account for the difference between what they were doing and what "worship" implies in our western monotheistic context. Define what you mean by "wrong", spiritually, culturally, socially.

Intent is not the same as ki - intent is purely of the mind and ki is the energy that bridges the mental to the physical; so, it has mental and physical qualities.

We have a nervous system that bridges the mental to the physical. So what does ki do that the nervous system doesn't do?

Quote:

this is just not a good analogy - no comment

It's a perfectly good analogy. The claim that "millions of people over thousands of years can't be wrong" has been disproved thousands of times over. Millions of people over thousands of years were wrong about the solar system, about gravity, about human rights, etc., etc., etc. So why can't they be wrong about chi?

Quote:

Who said the model works without ki - I just said your components of the process are included in the model.

I said the model works without ki. And in order for you to prove that wrong, you're going to have to do two things: (1) define what ki actually is, and (2) explain what someone can do with ki that someone else cannot do without ki.

Quote:

The model with just your components in it will work only within yourself and not be able to affect what is going on with an opponent that contacts you other than using brute force or some form of jujutsu leverage - there is much more to an interaction than that. If it is just your mental thought at work, how can you explain the difference in what your opponent feels when you project a thought just to his center or when you project that thought through and beyond his center?

Greg

The change in thinking changes the action. When I think through my opponent rather than into him, my muscles respond with more forward energy than before.

Aikido is not unique in this. When you're learning to do a jump shot in basketball, the coach will tell you to see the ball in the basket before you shoot. When you're learning to sing opera, the voice teacher will tell you to imagine your voice filling up your face or travelling to the far end of the room. It works because the brain controls the muscles, and therefore changing what your brain is doing changes what your muscles are doing.

Suppose we would no longer use the word Ki, as it can be confusing and leading to complicated discussions - could we replace the word Ki for a word or concept that will explain it to satisfaction for western people? If so, what would be that word; intent, sensing, visualisation, spirit or ...?
Tom

Now THAT is a good question.

The problem with giving it a straight answer is that so many different people use the word ki to mean so many different things in so many different situations. I don't think there is a one-to-one switch to be made here.

Let me use another word as an analogy: magic. Humans used to ascribe many different phenomena to magic. When we stopped believing in magic, there was no one word to replace it. We had to find different words for different phenomena. I think we have to do the same with ki, and I think most of us, consciously or not, are already doing this to some degree.

A couple of you have asserted that there are things in aikido that cannot be explained by physics, or at least by physics as we currently understand it. Can anyone point to a specific instance of this? That, I think, would hit the proverbial nail on the head and make this thread into a single coherent conversation.

I apologize to those of you two whom I have not replied specifically. There are so many responses here that I'd be up all night if I tried to quote them all and reply point-by-point.

A couple of you have asserted that there are things in aikido that cannot be explained by physics, or at least by physics as we currently understand it. Can anyone point to a specific instance of this? That, I think, would hit the proverbial nail on the head and make this thread into a single coherent conversation.

I apologize to those of you two whom I have not replied specifically. There are so many responses here that I'd be up all night if I tried to quote them all and reply point-by-point.

Personally I think it'd be a great exercise.
It's all too easy to chalk a lot of this stuff as being "too complex" therefore...etc (though I agree, there are parts, especially with regards to breath pressure, tissue elasticity etc that would be much more complex to model accurately)
But there are some aspects of say, "Jin" or "Kokyu force" that can be explained using simple physics, and contrasted against how say maybe someone typically uses a force.

Maybe a good place to start would be how a typical person handles a push, versus how someone else with skills handles a push.

Just to get the ball rolling, I'd say the human body is designed to handle vertical loads efficiently. It tends to be uneconomical when a horizontal load is brought into play.
So one question would be, how do you efficiently deal with an incoming horizontal force (assuming its coming from a person).

There are a lot of problems with the concept of ki, the foremost being that no two people can agree on what ki actually is.

Well, actually plenty of people agree on how to define it, even if many people (not all) have a vague sense of what it represents or have diverging definitions. Particularly, people who share the same phenominological experiences, will share understanding of their given conceptualization.

Quote:

None of what I've written so far addresses the more pragmatic users of the word ki: the ones who believe (correctly, I think) that what used to be called ki is in fact a combination of breathing, biomechanics, and visualization, and who assert (incorrectly, I think) that there's nothing wrong with continuing to use the word so long as we understand that there's nothing mystical or supernatural about it.

To me it's not unlike saying 1+1+x=y
I may not have all the values pinned down, but it's a start. The semantics of a lot of words strike me as being similar in nature...particularly the ones denoting more abstract concepts.

Quote:

I am a real jerk about words. When we start deciding that words can mean whatever we want them to mean, words begin to lose their meaning altogether. We already have words for breathing, biomechanics, and visualization. Adding ki to that mix only obfuscates things.

Well, we already have words to describe the different aspects of biomechanics, why do we need a term which references them all at once? Why have synonyms for that matter? Just more clutter, if I'm understanding your reasoning here.

Hello, I'm new here, and to aikido, but this topic is something I've been giving quite a lot of thought to so it's prompted me to post my take, FWIW.

I don't think everything we see in aikido can be explained by physics, but I do suspect that, in theory, it's explicable by physics, neurophysiology, bio-mechanics and a number of other "hard science" disciplines working in conjunction. AFAIK this hasn't been done very comprehensively so far though. Big piece of work.

However, just because it's explicable within that paradigm doesn't mean there's no place for the use of the terms ki/chi or that they're not helpful. I see them as shorthand, metaphorical, poetic. Poetry condenses meaning and content in a more potent application of language than prose. If I say to my kids "weight underside" they get a lot harder to lift off the ground. If I had to explain to them what I meant in biomechanical and neurological terms they'd be "eh?" (and to be fair I wouldn't have much of an idea where to start).

There is a well-recognised paradox in that by deconstructing and analysing something we can also lose something of its essence whilst gaining understanding.

"oh! what a beautiful rainbow"

"oh, what an interesting splitting of white light into the spectrum through the refraction of sunlight by water droplets at the correct angle relative to me as an observer to produce this phenomenon"

Similarly, deconstructing a dance track into ABABAA structure in a major key with a 4/4 beat etc. doesn't help if you want to boogie your pants off.

Apparently there's been a resurgence of interest in metaphysics in the anglo-american tradition in the last couple of decades, not least amongst hard-nosed scientists and philosophers of science. I suppose physics is pretty damn weird when you really get into it and as a consequence people are growing more comfortable with questions along the lines of "what kind of stuff is there and what's it like?". An old friend from uni days who now teaches aikido and runs a philosophy faculty takes the line that "aikido is physics" but also that upon deep consideration all manifestation of physical existence in terms of "things" is illusory, there are no independent objects at all, everything comes down to structure and interrelationships. I don't understand this, or how it might be relevant, but offer it up because it sounds pretty cool.

Here is a thought: There are two students: both are very experienced and pretty much the same size. One throws most ukes easily... another has problems with most ukes. Their movements look pretty much the same. The only difference and it is a huge one, is that one understands about ki and the other doesn't.

A couple of you have asserted that there are things in aikido that cannot be explained by physics, or at least by physics as we currently understand it. Can anyone point to a specific instance of this? That, I think, would hit the proverbial nail on the head and make this thread into a single coherent conversation.

I apologize to those of you two whom I have not replied specifically. There are so many responses here that I'd be up all night if I tried to quote them all and reply point-by-point.

The old footage of O Sensei with Terry Dobson. At one point O Sensei appears to discuss and apply "ki" and send Dobson very sleepy. Compliant, faking, hypnosis, something else explainable by physics?

Well, actually plenty of people agree on how to define it, even if many people (not all) have a vague sense of what it represents or have diverging definitions. Particularly, people who share the same phenominological experiences, will share understanding of their given conceptualization.

Then what is that definition?

Quote:

To me it's not unlike saying 1+1+x=y
I may not have all the values pinned down, but it's a start. The semantics of a lot of words strike me as being similar in nature...particularly the ones denoting more abstract concepts.

But aikido is not abstract. An aikido technique, when performed correctly, produces a specific, measurable, physical result. What place has abstraction in there?

Quote:

Well, we already have words to describe the different aspects of biomechanics, why do we need a term which references them all at once?

It is sometimes useful to reference them all at once. The reason that logic doesn't extend to ki is that the word ki doesn't explain itself. The Greek roots of biomechanics make it abundantly clear to anyone who speaks a language that makes a lot of use of Greek (like English and most Slavic and Romance languages). I can simply say the word and everyone knows what I'm talking about and, just as importantly, what I'm not talking about. Not so with ki.

Quote:

Why have synonyms for that matter? Just more clutter, if I'm understanding your reasoning here.

Specificity and clarity are not clutter. The subtle differences between synonyms allow us to convey nuance.

The problem with ki isn't that it is a word for something else. The problem with ki is that, when used, it makes things less clear; it is a stumbling block to communication rather than an aid to it. (Note here that I am referring specifically to ki as we use it in the martial arts, not the many ways it is used in the Japanese language.)

The old footage of O Sensei with Terry Dobson. At one point O Sensei appears to discuss and apply "ki" and send Dobson very sleepy. Compliant, faking, hypnosis, something else explainable by physics?

I haven't seen the video, so I can't comment specifically.

But that doesn't sound like a martial arts technique to me, so I think the question of its validity falls outside the scope of this conversation, unless it can be convincingly asserted that what makes O Sensei's hypnosis work is the same thing that makes a kotegaeshi work.

I got a much clearer view about what qi is and how qi can be "practiced" and experienced when I started to read about the Chinese internal arts like nei gong or tai chi.
There is a clear nomenclature, definitions, a coherent system which connects the understanding of qi with the human body and the human mind. qi is not something mystique or esoteric here, but something "down to earth". (... or up to heaven ...)
And by using the forms of qi gong for example, there can be experienced certain effects and develpment.

For me it is important that qi is not something supernatural or esoteric or non-physical ... but is somthing that is part of our body, our mind, connects both of them.

The problem with ki isn't that it is a word for something else. The problem with ki is that, when used, it makes things less clear; it is a stumbling block to communication rather than an aid to it. (Note here that I am referring specifically to ki as we use it in the martial arts, not the many ways it is used in the Japanese language.)

Yes, what is that definition of Ki that everybody seems to agree upon?

Part of the problem is that we in the western part of the world, have disconnected the original meaning of ki, and have given it a limited meaning that we apply only to the martial arts. This limited version of ki leans too often towards something magical. Some think that some have it and others do not. As there is no solid definition of this limited version of ki and there is no longer a connection with the original way of thinking we unwillingly create our own vague ideas about ki.
The Japanese teachers that I have met don't have any problems with the idea of ki, as it is a common word in the Japanese language. Even without giving it much thought they naturally associate it with a mood, a feeling, a thought, the mind, life (if people do not have ki, they are deceased), etc.
Ki is like spirit with its Latin - Greek history, a word rich in associations, interpretations - a word with a very long philosophical history.
We tend to associate ki as only having to do with the application of a technique. But in Chinese/Japanese philosophy, as has been taught to the samurai for many centuries, ki not only refers to martial skills but ki is the "carrier" of ethics and esthetics. This explains why in Japan even today budo grading is not just given based on being successful in throwing (our Western idea of objective results), but just as much based on ethical behaviour and esthetics.

Without its original context ki has become a rather poor, meager word and it is this limited version of ki that is creating much of the confusions.

In day to day life we already use different words to explain ki to people unfamiliar with the word. In that sense we do not really need the word ki.
Personally I use the word ki in my Aikido lessons in reference to the classic Chinese/Japanese philosophical context and try to avoid any debate on the modern interpretations or limited versions of ki.

Hello, I'm new here, and to aikido, but this topic is something I've been giving quite a lot of thought to so it's prompted me to post my take, FWIW.

I don't think everything we see in aikido can be explained by physics, but I do suspect that, in theory, it's explicable by physics, neurophysiology, bio-mechanics and a number of other "hard science" disciplines working in conjunction. AFAIK this hasn't been done very comprehensively so far though. Big piece of work.

However, just because it's explicable within that paradigm doesn't mean there's no place for the use of the terms ki/chi or that they're not helpful. I see them as shorthand, metaphorical, poetic. Poetry condenses meaning and content in a more potent application of language than prose. If I say to my kids "weight underside" they get a lot harder to lift off the ground. If I had to explain to them what I meant in biomechanical and neurological terms they'd be "eh?" (and to be fair I wouldn't have much of an idea where to start).

There is a well-recognised paradox in that by deconstructing and analysing something we can also lose something of its essence whilst gaining understanding.

"oh! what a beautiful rainbow"

"oh, what an interesting splitting of white light into the spectrum through the refraction of sunlight by water droplets at the correct angle relative to me as an observer to produce this phenomenon"

Similarly, deconstructing a dance track into ABABAA structure in a major key with a 4/4 beat etc. doesn't help if you want to boogie your pants off.

Apparently there's been a resurgence of interest in metaphysics in the anglo-american tradition in the last couple of decades, not least amongst hard-nosed scientists and philosophers of science. I suppose physics is pretty damn weird when you really get into it and as a consequence people are growing more comfortable with questions along the lines of "what kind of stuff is there and what's it like?". An old friend from uni days who now teaches aikido and runs a philosophy faculty takes the line that "aikido is physics" but also that upon deep consideration all manifestation of physical existence in terms of "things" is illusory, there are no independent objects at all, everything comes down to structure and interrelationships. I don't understand this, or how it might be relevant, but offer it up because it sounds pretty cool.

According to some philosophers and scientists science does not explain anything at all, it gives a description of reality. Much like a recipe for an apple-pie. The recipe does not tell you anything about the sensation of eating the apple-pie or the taste of it. It only gives one description out of many of how you could make it.

There are still a lot of things that we cannot describe in a scientific way. Of many of these things we are totally unaware. Of some of it we are aware, but we find it hard to find words for it.

That is were poetry, metaphor, myths and stories come in. They have value to us in many different ways and can give us at times more comfort then science.

Being connected to nature is an important aspect of most budo. To me, living in the forests, this means in a very practical sense being aware of all the things that are happening in these forests, in other words being aware of the structure and the connectedness of everything.

I am surprised that your uni friend separates teaching Aikido from his understanding of how nature works? Combining these are for me the challenge.

We have a nervous system that bridges the mental to the physical. So what does ki do that the nervous system doesn't do?

It's a perfectly good analogy. The claim that "millions of people over thousands of years can't be wrong" has been disproved thousands of times over. Millions of people over thousands of years were wrong about the solar system, about gravity, about human rights, etc., etc., etc. So why can't they be wrong about chi?

I said the model works without ki. And in order for you to prove that wrong, you're going to have to do two things: (1) define what ki actually is, and (2) explain what someone can do with ki that someone else cannot do without ki.

The change in thinking changes the action. When I think through my opponent rather than into him, my muscles respond with more forward energy than before.

Aikido is not unique in this. When you're learning to do a jump shot in basketball, the coach will tell you to see the ball in the basket before you shoot. When you're learning to sing opera, the voice teacher will tell you to imagine your voice filling up your face or travelling to the far end of the room. It works because the brain controls the muscles, and therefore changing what your brain is doing changes what your muscles are doing.

The nervous system is not of the mind, it is physical and it is controlled by the mind - the bridge is the ki.

Who ever said the sacrifice of people to the gods was wrong? at the time I sure it served a purpose and had functions in the society - today they have found other solutions for those functions - ki/chi belief is still very much alive within the Eastern cultures - and until someone comes along with a better solution to the functions it serves, it will stay that way.

To me, ki is a form of energy much like electrical, magnetic, and other forms of energy within the electro-magnetic spectrum that resides in both the mental and physical domains of all living things as well as in the atomic structure of inanimate objects. It can be felt, developed, and controlled by all sentient beings within themselves as well as in others with the proper connection - in a nut shell, I see ki as how Tohei taught it. This model of ki can explain why an opponent can feel energy movement within themselves that is being controlled by someone else that is simply connected to them with no physical movement - how does your model explain that?

The nervous system is not of the mind, it is physical and it is controlled by the mind - the bridge is the ki.
To me, ki is a form of energy much like electrical, magnetic, and other forms of energy within the electro-magnetic spectrum that resides in both the mental and physical domains of all living things as well as in the atomic structure of inanimate objects. It can be felt, developed, and controlled by all sentient beings within themselves as well as in others with the proper connection - in a nut shell, I see ki as how Tohei taught it. This model of ki can explain why an opponent can feel energy movement within themselves that is being controlled by someone else that is simply connected to them with no physical movement - how does your model explain that?
Greg

I completely disagree. Ki is not a form of energy it is controlled use of the body systems through intent. It's effects -on the body- are palpable so people incorrectly assign it to an "energy" all it's own.Think ki will not produce anything real
Managing your body systems to think "lead ki" in certain described manners produces real results in a health system of moving your bodies energy and in a martial system to produce power.

I really don't care what most people in Budo think about it. What they have written about is mostly guess work and regurgitated nonsense tatamount to a "belief system," Japanese and Westerners alike.They fail in producing anything other than fairy tale cooperative nonsense. In so doing they give a very real technology a bad name.

Others use it to make some progress and while doing *some* correct things that organize the body, they mistakenly assign it to woo woo energy.

Some famous teachers have waaay overplayed their hand, conning people into thinking they are producing an "energy" outside of themselves that controls their environment and others.
There's nothing much to be done. People WANT to believe this nonsense, so much so, that even in the face of it failing...over and over, they still allow themselves to get sucked and enthralled by an otherwise not so spectacular methodology. In fact, when pressed, the big shots don't really....have.....a way to teach it.
Why?
Because it isn't real.

I very politely avoid shaking that tree and completely taking apart these manufactured cons. There are practical and real methods to explore power generation through the correct use of six harmonies. People following the real methods will forever own the charlatans and the earnest ner-do-wells with their belief systems.

My best suggestion is for everyone to avoid each other. On contact it is not going to go very well. And some, coming face to face with their beliefs falling apart, and others with seeing a famous teachers fail against a nobody, will resent it and resent you for doing it. In the mean time they go about throwing themselves and twisting up in knots in front of some Asian guy!! Always and always an Asian guy... huh boys and girls?" Oh well. People will come to the natural end results in time. There is going to be an inescapable conclusion as in the end they themselves have and got nothing....while others learn to produce power using the real ki methods that were discussed for ages.
Dan